I've been told I might be a Pyrrhoist. I'm not so sure! LOL

Perhaps I am. But then again, perhaps I'm not. I do have some quite strong views on life, and I do believe that we can know some stuff. But really what I've read below, is all that I know about Pyrrho. So if you know more and can enlighten me further - please do! :)

This from Wik:

The main principle of Pyrrho's thought is expressed by the word acatalepsia, which connotes the ability to withhold assent from doctrines regarding the truth of things in their own nature; against every statement its contradiction may be advanced with equal justification. Secondly, it is necessary in view of this fact to preserve an attitude of intellectual suspense, or, as Timon expressed it, no assertion can be known to be better than another. Thirdly, Pyrrho applied these results to life in general, concluding that, since nothing can be known, the only proper attitude is ataraxia, "freedom from worry". ("By suspending judgment, by confining oneself to phenomena or objects as they appear, and by asserting nothing definite as to how they really are, one can escape the perplexities of life and attain an imperturbable peace of mind.")

The proper course of the sage, said Pyrrho, is to ask himself three questions. Firstly we must ask what things are and how they are constituted. Secondly, we ask how we are related to these things. Thirdly, we ask what ought to be our attitude towards them. Pyrrho's answer was that things are indistinguishable, unmeasurable, undecidable, and no more this than that, or both this and that and neither this nor that. He concluded that human senses neither transmit truths nor lie.[2] Humanity cannot know the inner substance of things, only how things appear.

The impossibility of knowledge, even in regard to our own ignorance or doubt, should induce the wise man to withdraw into himself, avoiding the stress and emotion which belong to the contest of vain imaginings. This theory of the impossibility of knowledge is the first and the most thorough exposition of noncognitivism in the history of thought.[citation needed] Its ethical implications may be compared with the ideal tranquility of the Stoics and the Epicureans.

Views: 98


You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Alice on February 28, 2011 at 8:34pm
I must admit – it sounds more like men behaving badly that serious philosophy – but perhaps that’s the level there were at, at the time?
Comment by Alice on February 28, 2011 at 12:36am
John, LMHO.... Diogenes was good for a laugh if nothing else.... these ancient philosophers where amusing in their anti-social behaviour...
Comment by Clarence Dember on February 26, 2011 at 9:13am
I think due in large part to their respective lack of concepts my cats are Pyrrhoist.
Comment by Alice on February 26, 2011 at 3:54am

 LOL... that's what I love about this place. People say what they think - they don't hold back.  It's really doing me some good to have this open honesty - reminds me of home - Leeds, England.  Since I've been living in Australia - don't know why, perhaps it's the people I've been socialising with, but they are all so uptight and watch their words all the time and don’t seem to be able to relax – or maybe it’s just me not being able to relax!


Anyhow.  Sure Pyrrho was an idiot.  According to those who wrote about him years later.


I would consider myself a Naturalist – from what I’ve read about Naturalism.


But I do like history – the history of anything can be interesting to see the evolution of something – whether that’s thought or machine.


I know basically nothing about Pyrrho, but I can see that his approach could have a time and a place – in a broader approach.  There would be times when it could be useful to withhold judgment.  If for example you were an idiot and didn’t want to make a fool of yourself! LOL


This guy just sounds really non-committal and contrary doesn’t he!

Comment by MCT on February 25, 2011 at 9:17pm
Skepticism fails at its outset. The idea that nothing can be known is itself a contradiction. One cannot have valid knowledge that knowledge is not possible or valid. Knowledge is possible and comes from the contextual and hierarchical noncontradictory integration of new perceptions and concepts into previously established knowledge. Perfection is not an essential quality of knowledge. Non-contradiction is.

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service